Evidence Hub

A systematic review of the performance of methods for identifying carious lesions

Bader JD, Shugars DA, Bonito AJ

Journal of public health dentistry, 2002

Abstract

This systematic review evaluates evidence describing histologically validated performance of methods for identifying carious lesions. A search identified 1,407 articles, of which 39 were included that described 126 assessment of visual, visual/tactile, radiographic (film and digital), fiber optic transillumination, electrical conductance, and laser fluorescence methods. A subsequent update added four studies contributing 10 assessments. The strength of the evidence was judged to be poor for all applications, signifying that the available information is insufficient to support generalizable estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of any given application of a diagnostic method. The literature is problematic with respect to complete reporting of methods, variations in histological validation methods, the small number of in vivo studies, selection of teeth, small numbers of examiners, and other factors threatening both internal and external validity. Future research must address these problems as well as expand the range of assessments to include primary teeth and root surfaces.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free